A group blog to promote discussion, debate and insight into the history, particularly religious, of America's founding. Any observations, questions, or comments relating to the blog's theme are welcomed.

Sunday, July 9, 2017

Agit-Prof

Howard Zinn's influential mutilations of American history

March 18, 2013

In the 1980s, in the faculty-filled suburbs west of Boston, the historian Howard Zinn was something of a folk hero. The Boston Globe, where Zinn published a column, ran stories of his battles with the dictatorial John Silber, the president of Boston University, who cracked down on unions, censored student protests, and denied pay raises to enemies such as Zinn. When it was learned that the National Labor Relations Board had reinstated service workers who had been fired for striking, or that the courts upheld a student’s right to hang a “divest” banner from his window, a wave of satisfaction would surge from Cambridge to Brookline to Newton to Wellesley. As Silber’s chief nemesis, Zinn—handsome in profile, gentle in manner—made for a winning poster boy for anyone who reviled Silber’s high-handed rule.

A People’s History whispered that everything I had learned in school was a sugar-coated fairy tale

As a faculty brat in those years, I was doubly enamored of Zinn after a classmate gave me A People’s History of the United States, his now-famous victims’-eye panorama of the American experience. In my adolescent rebelliousness, I thrilled to Zinn’s deflation of what he presented as the myths of standard-issue history. Do you know that the Declaration of Independence charged King George with fomenting slave rebellions and attacks from “merciless Indian Savages”? That James Polk started a war with Mexico as a pretext for annexing California? That Eugene Debs was jailed for calling World War I a war of conquest and plunder? Perhaps you do, if you are moderately well-read in American history. And if you are very well-read, you also know that these statements themselves are problematic simplifications. But like most sixteen-year-olds, I didn’t know any of this. Mischievously—subversively—A People’s History whispered that everything I had learned in school was a sugar-coated fairy tale, if not a deliberate lie. Now I knew.

What I didn’t realize was that the orthodox version of the American past that Howard Zinn spent his life debunking was by the 1980s no longer quite as hegemonic as Zinn made out. Even my high school history teacher marked Columbus Day by explaining that the celebrated “discoverer” of America had plundered Hispaniola for its gold and that, in acts of barbarism that would later be classified as genocide, Columbus’s men had butchered the native Arawaks, slicing off limbs for sport and turning their scrotums into change-purses. (This last detail stuck vividly in the teenage mind.) That Mr. MacDougall was conversant with radical scholarship such as Zinn’s suggests that much had changed from the days when Zinn himself had imbibed uncritical schoolbook accounts of the American story. True, in the popular books and public ceremonies of the 1980s, you could still find a whitewashed tale of the nation’s past, as you can today; and many cities around the country shielded their charges from such heresies. But as far as historians were concerned, the sacred cows that Howard Zinn was purporting to gore had already been slaughtered many times. As Jon Wiener noted in the Journal of American History, “during the early seventies … of all the changes in the profession, the institutionalization of radical history was the most remarkable.”

The question of politicized scholarship was in fact deeply divisive not just between the “consensus” historians and the New Left historians, but also among the New Left historians themselves. Some of the young radicals, such as Lasch, Weinstein, and Genovese, insisted that the political or social influence of their scholarship would of necessity unfold slowly, incrementally, and through the sinuous, indirect paths of the culture. For all their leftist bona fides, these men agreed with their stodgy forebears that the intellectual had to hew to the highest standards of rigor; it was by the strength of their scholarship that they might revise entrenched beliefs that gave rise to the social conditions that, as a political matter, they decried. Genovese, most vociferously, flatly rejected the siren song of “relevant” history: he, too, hoped at the time for a socialist future, but he believed that it was best served by history that was true to the evidence, valid in its interpretations, and competent in its execution. This rift in the New Left between “scholars” and “activists” eventually led to the collapse of Studies on the Left, as well as to a donnybrook at the meeting of the American Historical Association in 1969, at which Staughton Lynd, a leading activist, ran for association president on an insurgent plank, prompting the cantankerous Genovese—still very much a radical—to bellow from the floor that Lynd and his allies were “totalitarians.”2

Lynd's insurrection sputtered, but his and Zinn’s position wormed its way into the thinking of generations of graduate students, and it is distressingly easy today to find tendentious scholarship that exhibits a Zinn-like habit of judging historical acts and actors by their contemporary utility. As much as radical history contributed invaluable new arguments and perspectives to historical scholarship, it has also left an unhappy legacy of confusing or commingling political and scholarly goals. At its most egregious, this confusion takes the form of polemical potboilers such as Zinn’s or, worse, propagandistic screeds such as Peter Kuznick’s and Oliver Stone’s The Untold History of the United States. (Three decades after Zinn, five decades after William Appleman Williams, it takes chutzpah to claim that a conspiracy-laden tale about America’s unremitting malice has somehow been “untold,” but then one wouldn’t expect Stone’s history to be any more subtle than his movies.)

Such cant will usually be called out by responsible historians, left, right, or center. More troubling is that “the pragmatic fallacy,” as David Hackett Fischer called it, has insinuated itself into a good deal of historical literature even by respected and able historians, at a level deep enough to be nearly invisible. While excellent work is done by self-identified leftists, too much academic work today assumes such dubious premises as (to name but a few) the superiority of socialism to a mixed economy, the inherent malignancy of American intervention abroad, and the signal virtue of the left itself. Franklin Roosevelt’s rescue of capitalism is routinely treated as a disappointment because he did not go all the way to socialism. Truman’s suspicion of Stalin is treated as short-sightedness or war-mongering. Anti-Communism of even the most discerning sort is lumped in with McCarthyism as an expression of mass paranoia. Labor’s mid-century decisions to work with management to secure good wages and benefits are seen as selling out. And too seldom is it acknowledged that throughout its history the left has operated from low motives as well as high ones, and has caused social harm as well as social improvement, and has destroyed as well as created.

The real problem of course, is that though David Barton's history is flawed, he has nowhere near the influence Howard Zinn and his acolytes have in the education establishment. Neither do Barton's critics seem terribly exercised about Zinn's crimes against history. Lip service at best.

Ian F. Shield said...That article probably would not have appeared in TNR after Chris Hughes got rid of the editorial staff the following year.

Quite. American liberalism ala The New Republic and Bill Clinton is dead, subsumed by leftism of the internationalist stripe. The problem is worse than one of politics. Leftism has conquered not just what, but how the academy thinks.

On a personal note, even though he wasn't a libertarian, I dig Zinn's archnemesis President Silber. There are very few people who revel in playing the role of the villain the institution loves to hate (because he makes decisions that the institution disagrees with). Yes Silber could be a total S.O.B. But he was also brilliant, competent, responsible and had a serious conscience. And for that he was extremely successful as President of B.U. (But his persona cost him the Gov. of Mass. election.)

Zinn writes well and is quite inspiring, but his book is bad history. In fact, I would not even call it history. A People's History of the United States is a political tract that uses the past to promote a presentist agenda. It is basically, to paraphrase the words of Bernard Bailyn, political indoctrination by historical example. Now I have no problem if Zinn wants to use the past to advance his leftist agenda. In fact, there is a lot I can agree with in Zinn's criticisms of his country. But please don't call this history and pass it off to students as a model of how to write history. Zinn's book violates virtually every rule of good historical thinking...

It's interesting that so many people providing academic critiques of Zinn were, in there own words, drawn into the field of history by reading and engaging with his work.

They weren't. He produced a biography of Fiorello LaGuardia and a couple of minor labor histories (with one of which he had the help of collaborators - IIRC, he was not the lead author). His biography of LaGuardia was an adaptation of his doctoral dissertation. That was his entire output of original research from 1955 until his death. And, yet, he had a tenured position at a research university. The academic job market was pretty soft for the first 3 decades after the war.

He published many volumes, of course, but none were histories derived from primary sources. The various editions of A People's History... were iterations of a cheap teaching text. He also produced many extended works of opinion journalism. His signature was the 'bibliographic essay' at the rear of the volume, where he sketches what he's been reading lately (newspapers and magazines, mostly).

What's irritating is that serious historians who do original research (commonly involving a mastery of at least one foreign language) are commonly shunted off faculties like BU or off the faculty of teaching institutions which require a baseline of scholarship.

And, of course, it came out after his death that he'd been a Communist Party member ca. 1947, of a type who attended political meetings several times a week. We're all supposed to take moral instruction from someone who was an adherent of the Joseph Stalin Press Agency. (Hey, Ellen Schrecker, isn't Zinn's personal odyssey over the period running from 1947 to 1959 somewhat...off message?).

I am not making a defense of Zinn's academic performance. As I said, "in their own words" some of those making the critiques acknowledge a debt to Zinn for getting into the field through engagement with his work.

He published many volumes, of course, but none were histories derived from primary sources. The various editions of A People's History... were iterations of a cheap teaching text. He also produced many extended works of opinion journalism. His signature was the 'bibliographic essay' at the rear of the volume, where he sketches what he's been reading lately (newspapers and magazines, mostly).

What's irritating is that serious historians who do original research (commonly involving a mastery of at least one foreign language) are commonly shunted off faculties like BU or off the faculty of teaching institutions which require a baseline of scholarship.

And, of course, it came out after his death that he'd been a Communist Party member ca. 1947, of a type who attended political meetings several times a week. We're all supposed to take moral instruction from someone who was an adherent of the Joseph Stalin Press Agency. (Hey, Ellen Schrecker, isn't Zinn's personal odyssey over the period running from 1947 to 1959 somewhat...off message?).

a debt to Zinn for getting into the field through engagement with his work.

You're not acknowledging what 'his work' was.

The bulk of his publications lacked an architecture of footnotes or endnotes and lacked a properly formatted bibliography as well. Take five issues of The Nation, put 'em between hard covers, and that's what you get. What's interesting is that for 20 years, trade presses and university presses issued his work. Did they ever make a dime off any of it? Memo to Ellen Schrecker: red-haze hacks were not rebels in 1970 (nor any time since).

As for A People's History..., with what are you 'engaging'? His interpretive framework? It exists as a cautionary example.

I made a small observation. You both misinterpreted what I said and called me out for not being sufficiently critical of his work.

"with what are you 'engaging'?"

I never said that I was engaging with his work. I said that the historians that are providing the critique of his work also give a favorable nod to Zin and/or, again in their own words, entered the field by engaging with his work. I thought that this was interesting. that is all. Ask them with what they engaged. Not me. Or, read the articles. Your rage is not my rage.

HOW I BECAME A MILLIONAIRE IN 14DAYS BY JOINING GREAT ILLUMINATI SOCIETY ONLINE.Am Christabel, am delighted to share with you how I became rich and famous just within 14days.I have heard people saying you can become rich and famous by joining the Illuminati society but I never believed because I thought the society were only for musicians like Jay Z, Michael Jackson and other.On a certain day I was on the internet I saw the official email address and Whatsapp number of the great Illuminati society online assistant agent responsible for registration. I contact him and he gave me guarantee that I will become rich once I join the society of Illuminati and that I will receive all my benefit after two weeks of registration which include a car, house, $1,000,000 to start up life and a monthly salary of $50,000 and a Golden box.This is how i now become a millionaire in two weeks.if you want to say good bye to poverty for life contact the online assistant on illuminatisociety2017@gmail.com or Whatsapp (+234)9028287911